The court had some strong feelings regarding the state's expert witnesses:

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court." Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.

It has been my observation during my lifetime that courts have generally demonstrated gender bias against males, in terms of alimony and child support. But how can a court discriminate when BOTH 'spouses' are male or neither 'spouse' is male?

I am stunned at how easily those who claim deep religious faith will be so dishonest in attempts to force others to adhere to their beliefs. Am I interpreting it too literally, or is this exactly what is meant by "bearing false witness"?

FTFA: "the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.Friedman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, wasn't moved."

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court." Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.

A friend of mine, who is an expert witness for domestic assult cases told me that if her testimony was ever found to be unreliable, she'd never be hired again as an expert witness and would easily lose her job with the non-profit she works for.

That said, the prosecution in this case probably knew exactly what these expert witnesses were going to testify, knew how irrelevant it was, and decided to agree to give them expert status for this case so that the defense could dig their own hole deeper and deeper.

Lekneh:GWSuperfan: The court had some strong feelings regarding the state's expert witnesses:

"The Court finds Regnerus's testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."AND "The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks's testimony is largely unbelievable."

I wonder if you could put that on a resume. "My testimony was found 'entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration' in Federal Court." Some GOP Senator would hire that guy in a heartbeat.

A friend of mine, who is an expert witness for domestic assult cases told me that if her testimony was ever found to be unreliable, she'd never be hired again as an expert witness and would easily lose her job with the non-profit she works for.

That said, the prosecution in this case probably knew exactly what these expert witnesses were going to testify, knew how irrelevant it was, and decided to agree to give them expert status for this case so that the defense could dig their own hole deeper and deeper.

OccamsWhiskers:I am stunned at how easily those who claim deep religious faith will be so dishonest in attempts to force others to adhere to their beliefs. Am I interpreting it too literally, or is this exactly what is meant by "bearing false witness"?

I'm not.

(CSB: I have to tolerate several Fundamentalist "Christians" at my workplace; one of whom thinks that Christianity should be the the only* religion in the United States...and I'm in in the western part of Oregon, supposedly one of the most tolerant & liberal areas in the Nation...)

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:Would I be correct in asserting that these bans have only accelerated that which they were designed to prevent?

Or is that too good to be true?

It isn't too good to be true. Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it. His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans." He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.

svanmeter:It has been my observation during my lifetime that courts have generally demonstrated gender bias against males, in terms of alimony and child support. But how can a court discriminate when BOTH 'spouses' are male or neither 'spouse' is male?

It will be interesting if precedent gets set regarding things like custody and alimony when both spouses are of the same sex. Will such precedent affect same sex adjudications? The world wonders.

cc_rider:FTFA: "the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment that said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.Friedman, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, wasn't moved."

jaerik:Even better, many of the judges overturning the bans are quoting Scalia's argument in the DOMA case while they do it. His dissent was that "if we overturn DOMA by saying it came from anti-gay animus, well then, you have to conclude the same for all the state bans." He meant it to be an unthinkable reductio ad absurdum as to why DOMA should be upheld, but... joke's on him.